Sensitive educational research

5 Sensitive educational research

Much educational research can be sensitive, in

Contents, e.g. taboo or emotionally charged several senses, and researchers have to be acutely

areas of study (Farberow 1963), e.g. criminal- aware of a variety of delicate issues. This chapter

ity, deviance, sex, race, bereavement, viol- sets out different ways in which educational

ence, politics, policing, human rights, drugs, research might be sensitive. It then takes two

poverty, illness, religion and the sacred, significant issues in the planning and conduct

lifestyle, family, finance, physical appearance, of sensitive research – sampling and access – and

power and vested interests (Lee 1993; Arditti indicates why these twin concerns might be

2002; Chambers 2003). troublesome for researchers, and how they might

Situational and contextual circumstances (Lee

be addressed. Our outline includes a discussion

of gatekeepers and their roles. Sensitive research

Intrusion into private spheres and deep raises a range of difficult, sometimes intractable,

personal experience (Lee and Renzetti 1993: ethical issues, and we set out some of these in the

5), e.g. sexual behaviour, religious practices, chapter. Investigations involving powerful people

death and bereavement, even income and age. are taken as an instance of sensitive educational

Potential sanction, risk or threat of stigma- research, and this is used as a vehicle for examining

tization, incrimination, costs or career loss several key problematic matters in this area. The

to the researcher, participants or others, e.g. chapter moves to a practical note, proffering advice

groups and communities (Lee and Renzetti on how to ask questions in sensitive research.

1993; Renzetti and Lee 1993; De Laine 2000), Finally, the chapter sets out a range of key issues

a particular issue for the researcher who studies to be addressed in the planning, conduct and

human sexuality and who, consequently, suffers reporting of sensitive research.

from ‘stigma contagion’, i.e. sharing the same stigma as those being studied (Lee 1993: 9).

Impingement on political alignments (Lee

What is sensitive research?

Sensitive research is that ‘which potentially poses O Cultural and cross-cultural factors and inhibi-

a substantial threat to those who are involved tions (Sieber 1992: 129). or have been involved in it’ (Lee 1993: 4), or O Fear of scrutiny and exposure (Payne et al.

when those studied view the research as somehow undesirable (Van Meter 2000). Sensitivity can O Threat to the researchers and to the

derive from many sources, including: family members and associates of those studied (Lee 1993); Lee (1993: 34) suggests

Consequences for the participants (Sieber and that ‘chilling’ may take place, i.e. where Stanley 1988: 49).

researchers are ‘deterred from producing or

Consequences for other people, e.g. family disseminating research’ because they anticipate members, associates, social groups and the

hostile reactions from colleagues, e.g. on wider community, research groups and

race. ‘Guilty knowledge’ may bring personal institutions (Lee 1993: 5).

and professional risk from colleagues; it

120 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

is threatening both to researchers and to investigate. Sensitive educational research can participants (De Laine 2000: 67, 84).

act as a voice for the weak, the oppressed, those

Methodologies and conduct, e.g. when junior without a voice or who are not listened to; equally researchers conduct research on powerful

it can focus on the powerful and those in high people, when men interview women, when

profile positions.

senior politicians are involved, or where access The three kinds of sensitivities indicated above and disclosure are difficult (Simons 1989; Ball

may appear separately or in combination. The 1990; 1994a; Liebling and Shah 2001).

sensitivity concerns not only the topic itself, but also, perhaps more importantly, ‘the relationship

Sometimes all or nearly all of the issues listed between that topic and the social context’ above are present simultaneously. Indeed, in some

within which the research is conducted (Lee situations the very activity of actually undertaking

1993: 5). What appears innocent to the researcher educational research per se may be sensitive.

may be highly sensitive to the researched or This has long been the situation in totalitarian

to other parties. Threat is a major source of regimes, where permission has typically had to

sensitivity; indeed Lee (1993: 5) suggests that,

be granted from senior government officers and rather than generating a list of sensitive topics, departments in order to undertake educational

it is more fruitful to look at the conditions research. Closed societies may permit educational

under which ‘sensitivity’ arises within the research research only on approved, typically non-sensitive

process. Given this issue, the researcher will and comparatively apolitical topics. As Lee

need to consider how sensitive the educational (1993: 6) suggests: ‘research for some groups . . .

research will be, not only in terms of the is quite literally an anathema’. The very act

subject matter itself, but also in terms of the of doing the educational research, regardless of

several parties that have a stake in it, for its purpose, focus, methodology or outcome, is

example: headteachers and senior staff; parents; itself a sensitive matter (Morrison 2006). In this

students; schools; governors; local politicians and situation the conduct of educational research may

policy-makers; the researcher(s) and research hinge on interpersonal relations, local politics

community; government officers; the community; and micro-politics. What start as being simply

social workers and school counsellors; sponsors and methodological issues can turn out to be ethical

members of the public; members of the community and political/micro-political minefields.

being studied; and so on.

Lee (1993: 4) suggests that sensitive research Sensitivity inheres not only in the educational falls into three main areas: intrusive threat

topic under study, but also, much more (probing into areas which are ‘private, stressful

significantly, in the social context in which the or sacred’); studies of deviance and social control,

educational research takes place and on the likely

i.e. which could reveal information that could consequences of that research on all parties. Doing stigmatize or incriminate (threat of sanction);

research is not only a matter of designing a project and political alignments, revealing the vested

and collecting, analysing and reporting data – that interests of ‘powerful persons or institutions,

is the optimism of idealism or ignorance – but also or the exercise of coercion or domination’,

a matter of interpersonal relations, potentially or extremes of wealth and status (Lee 1993).

continual negotiation, delicate forging and As Beynon (1988: 23) says, ‘the rich and

sustaining of relationships, setback, modification powerful have encouraged hagiography, not

and compromise. In an ideal world educational critical investigation’. Indeed, Lee (1993: 8) argues

researchers would be able to plan and conduct that there has been a tendency to ‘study down’

their studies untrammelled; however, the ideal rather than ‘study up’, i.e. to direct attention

world, in the poet Yeats’s words, is ‘an image of to powerless rather than powerful groups, not

air’. Sensitive educational research exposes this least because these are easier and less sensitive

very clearly. While most educational research

SAMPLING AND ACCESS 121

Chapter

will incur sensitivities, the attraction of discussing of confidentiality may prevent this from being sensitive research per se is that it highlights what

employed).

these delicate issues might be and how they might

Screening : targeting a particular location and

be felt at their sharpest. We advise readers to canvassing within it (which may require much consider most educational research as sensitive, to

effort for little return).

anticipate what those sensitivities might be, and

Outcropping : this involves going to a particular what trade-offs might be necessary.

location where known members of the target group congregate or can be found

Sampling and access

(e.g. Humphreys’ (1970) celebrated study of homosexual ‘tearoom trade’); in education this

Walford (2001: 33) argues that gaining access and may be a particular staffroom (for teachers), becoming accepted is a slow process. Hammersley

or meeting place for students. Outcropping and Atkinson (1983: 54) suggest that gaining

risks bias, as there is no simple check for access not only is a practical matter but also

representativeness of the sample. provides insights into the ‘social organisation of

Servicing : Lee (1993: 72) suggests that it may the setting’.

be possible to reach research participants by Lee (1993: 60) suggests that there are potentially

offering them some sort of service in return serious difficulties in sampling and access in

for their participation. Researchers must be sensitive research, not least because of the problem

certain that they really are able to provide of estimating the size of the population from

the services promised. As Walford (2001: 36) which the sample is to be drawn, as members

writes: ‘people don’t buy products; they buy of particular groups, e.g. deviant or clandestine

benefits’, and researchers need to be clear on groups, will not want to disclose their associations.

the benefits offered.

Similarly, like-minded groups may not wish to

Professional informants : Lee (1993: 73) suggests open themselves to public scrutiny. They may

these could be, for example, police, doctors, have much to lose by revealing their membership

priests, or other professionals. In education and, indeed, their activities may be illicit, critical

these may include social workers and of others, unpopular, threatening to their own

counsellors. This may be unrealistic optimism, professional security, deviant and less frequent

as these very people may be bound by terms than activities in other groups, making access

of legal or ethical confidentiality or voluntary to them a major obstacle. What if a researcher

self-censorship (e.g. an AIDS counsellor, after is researching truancy, or teenage pregnancy, or

a harrowing day at work, may not wish bullying, or solvent abuse among school students,

to continue talking to a stranger about or alcohol and medication use among teachers, or

AIDS counselling, or a social worker or family relationship problems brought about by the

counsellor may be constrained by professional stresses of teaching?

confidentiality, or an exhausted teacher may Lee (1993: 61) suggests several strategies to

not wish to talk about teaching difficulties).

be used, either separately or in combination, for Further, Lee suggests that, even if such people sampling ‘special’ populations (e.g. rare or deviant

agree to participate, they may not know the populations):

full story; Lee (1993: 73) gives the example

List sampling : looking through public domain of drug users whose contacts with the police lists of, for example, the recently divorced

may be very different from their contacts with (though such lists may be more helpful to social

doctors or social workers, or, the corollary of researchers than, specifically, educational

this, the police, doctors and social workers may researchers).

not see the same group of drug users.

Multipurposing : using an existing survey to

Advertising : though this can potentially reach a reach populations of interest (though problems

wide population, it may be difficult to control

122 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

the nature of those who respond, in terms of pointed out. For example, a headteacher may representativeness or suitability.

wish to confide in a researcher, teachers may

Networking : this is akin to snowball sampling, benefit from discussions with a researcher, wherein one set of contacts puts the researcher

students may benefit from being asked about in touch with more contacts, who puts the

their learning.

researcher in touch with yet more contacts

4 Sale (where the participants agree to the and so on. This is a widely used technique,

research).

though Lee (1993: 66) reports that it is not always easy for contacts to be passed on,

Whitty and Edwards (1994: 22) argue that in as initial informants may be unwilling to

order to overcome problems of access, ingenuity divulge members of a close-knit community.

and even the temptation to use subterfuge could On the other hand, Morrison (2006) reports

be considered: ‘denied co-operation initially by that networking is a popular technique where

an independent school, we occasionally contacted it is difficult to penetrate a formal organization

some parents through their child’s primary school such as a school, if the gatekeepers (those

and then told the independent schools we already who can grant or prevent access to others,

were getting some information about their pupils’.

e.g. the headteacher or senior staff) refuse They also add that it is sometimes necessary access. He reports the extensive use of informal

for researchers to indicate that they are ‘on the networks by researchers, in order to contact

same side’ as those being researched. 1 Indeed they friends and professional associates, and, in

report that ‘we were questioned often about our turn, their friends and professional associates,

own views, and there were times when to be thereby sidestepping the formal lines of contact

viewed suspiciously from one side proved helpful in through schools.

gaining access to the other’ (Whitty and Edwards Walford (2001: 36–47) sets out a four-step

1994: 22). This harks back to Becker’s (1968) process of gaining access:

advice to researchers to decide whose side they are on.

1 Approach (gaining entry, perhaps through a The use of snowball sampling builds in mutual friend or colleague – a link person). In

‘security’ (Lee 1993), as the contacts are those this context Walford (2001) cautions that an

who are known and trusted by the members of initial letter should be used only to gain an

the ‘snowball’. That said, this itself can lead to initial interview or an appointment, or even

bias, as relationships between participants in the to arrange to telephone the headteacher in

sample may consist of ‘reciprocity and transitivity’ order to arrange an interview, not to conduct

(Lee 1993: 67), i.e. participants may have close the research or to gain access.

relationships with one another and may not wish

2 Interest (using a telephone call to arrange to break these. Thus homogeneity of the sample’s an initial interview). In this respect Walford

attributes may result.

(2001: 43) notes that headteachers like to Such snowball sampling may alter the talk, and so it is important to let them talk,

research, for example changing random, stratified even on the telephone when arranging an

or proportionate sampling into convenience interview to discuss the research.

sampling, thereby compromising generalizability

3 Desire (overcoming objections and stressing or generating the need to gain generalizability the benefits of the research). As Walford

by synthesizing many case studies. Nevertheless, (2001: 44) wisely comments: ‘after all, schools

it often comes to a choice between accepting have purposes other than to act as research

non-probability strategies or doing nothing. sites’. He makes the telling point that the

The issues of access to people in order to research may actually benefit the school, but

conduct sensitive research may require researchers that the school may not realize this until it is

to demonstrate a great deal of ingenuity and

SAMPLING AND ACCESS 123

Chapter

forethought in their planning. Investigators have

schools/institutions not wishing to be identifi- to be adroit in anticipating problems of access, and

able, even with protections guaranteed set up their studies in ways that circumvent such

local political factors that impinge on the problems, preventing them from arising in the

school/educational institution first place, e.g. by exploring their own institutions

teachers’/participants’ fear of being identi-

or personal situations, even if this compromises fied/traceable, even with protections guaran- generalizability. Such anticipatory behaviour can

teed

lead to a glut of case studies, action research and

fear of participation by teachers (e.g. if they accounts of their own institutions, as these are the

say critical matters about the school or others only kinds of research possible, given the problem

they could lose their contracts) of access.

unwillingness of teachers to be involved because of their workload

the principal deciding on whether to involve

Gatekeepers

the staff, without consultation with the staff Access might be gained through gatekeepers, that O schools’ fear of criticism/loss of face or

is, those who control access. Lee (1993: 123)

reputation

suggests that ‘social access crucially depends on O the sensitivity of the research – the issues being establishing interpersonal trust. Gatekeepers play a

investigated

significant role in research, particularly in ethno- O the power/position of the researcher (e.g. if the graphic research (Miller and Bell 2002: 53). They

researcher is a junior or senior member of staff control access and re-access (Miller and Bell

or an influential person in education). 2002: 55). They may provide or block access;

they may steer the course of a piece of research, Risk reduction may result in participants ‘shepherding the fieldworker in one direction or

imposing conditions on research (e.g. on what another’ (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983: 65), or

information investigators may or may not use; to exercise surveillance over the research.

whom the data can be shown; what is ‘public’; Gatekeepers may wish to avoid, contain, spread

what is ‘off the record’ (and what should be or control risk and therefore may bar access

done with off-the-record remarks). It may also or make access conditional. Making research

lead to surveillance/‘chaperoning’ of the researcher conditional may require researchers to change

while the study is being conducted on site (Lee the nature of their original plans in terms of

methodology, sampling, focus, dissemination, Gatekeepers may want to ‘inspect, modify or reliability and validity, reporting and control of

suppress the published products of the research’ data (Morrison 2006).

(Lee 1993: 128). They may also wish to use the Morrison (2006) found that in conducting

research for their own ends, i.e. their involvement sensitive educational research there were problems

may not be selfless or disinterested, or they may of

wish for something in return, e.g. for the researcher to include in the study an area of interest to the

gaining access to schools and teachers gatekeeper, or to report directly – and maybe ex-

gaining permission to conduct the research clusively – to the gatekeeper. The researcher has to (e.g. from school principals)

negotiate a potential minefield here, for example,

resentment by principals not to be seen as an informer for the headteacher.

people vetting which data could be used As Walford (2001: 45) writes: ‘headteachers [may]

finding enough willing participants for the suggest that researchers observe certain teachers sample

whom they want information about’. Researchers

schools/institutions/people not wishing to may need to reassure participants that their data divulge information about themselves

will not be given to the headteacher.

124 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

On the other hand, Lee (1993: 127) suggests

Box 5.1

that the researcher may have to make a few Issues of sampling and access in sensitive research concessions in order to be able to undertake the

investigation, i.e. that it is better to do a little of

the gatekeeper’s bidding rather than not to be able How to calculate the population and sample.

How representative of the population the sample

to do the research at all.

may or may not be.

In addition to gatekeepers the researcher may

What kind of sample is desirable (e.g. random), but

find a ‘sponsor’ in the group being studied. A

what kind may be the only sort that is practicable

sponsor may provide access, information and

(e.g. snowball).

support. A celebrated example of this is in the How to use networks for reaching the sample, and

what kinds of networks to utilize.

figure of ‘Doc’ in Whyte’s classic study of Street

How to research in a situation of threat to the

Corner Society (1993: the original study published

participants (including the researcher).

in 1943). Here Doc, a leading gang figure in the

How to protect identities and threatened groups.

Chicago street corner society, is quoted as saying How to contact the hard-to-reach.

(p. 292): How to secure and sustain access.

How to find and involve gatekeepers and sponsors.

You tell me what you want me to see, and we’ll What to offer gatekeepers and sponsors.

On what matters compromise may need to be arrange it. When you want some information, I’ll ask

negotiated.

for it, and you listen. When you want to find out their

On what matters can there be no compromise. philosophy of life, I’ll start an argument and get it for

How to negotiate entry and sustained field relations. you . . .. You won’t have any trouble. You come in as

What services the researcher may provide. a friend. O How to manage initial contacts with potential

(Whyte 1993: 292) groups for study.

As Whyte writes: My relationship with Doc changed rapidly . . .. At

first he was simply a key informant – and also my 1993 edition, Whyte reflects on the study with the sponsor. As we spent more time together, I ceased to

question as to whether he exploited Doc (p. 362); treat him as a passive informant. I discussed with him

it is a salutary reminder of the essential reciprocity quite frankly what I was trying to do, what problems

that might be involved in conducting sensitive were puzzling me, and so on . . . so that Doc became,

research.

in a real sense, a collaborator in the research. In addressing issues of sampling and access, there

are several points that arise from the discussion Whyte comments on how Doc was able to give

(Whyte 1993: 301)

(Box 5.1).

him advice on how best to behave when meeting Much research stands or falls on the sampling. people as part of the research:

These points reinforce our view that, rather than barring the research altogether, compromises may

Go easy on that ‘who’, ‘what’, ‘why’, ‘when’, ‘where’ have to be reached in sampling and access. It may stuff, Bill. You ask those questions and people will

be better to compromise rather than to abandon clam up on you. If people accept you, you can just

the research altogether.

hang around, and you’ll learn the answers in the long run without even having to ask the questions’

(Whyte 1993: 303)

Ethical issues in sensitive research

Indeed Doc played a role in the writing of the

A difficulty arises in sensitive research in that research: ‘As I wrote, I showed the various parts to

researchers can be party to ‘guilty knowledge’ (De Doc and went over them in detail. His criticisms

Laine 2000) and have ‘dirty hands’ (Klockars were invaluable in my revision’ (p. 341). In his

1979) about deviant groups or members of a school

ETHICAL ISSUES IN SENSITIVE RESEARCH 125

Chapter

who may be harbouring counter-attitudes to those deny access. The ethical issue of informed consent, prevailing in the school’s declared mission. Pushed

in this case, is violated in the interests of exposing further, this means that researchers will need to

matters that are in the public interest. decide the limits of tolerance, beyond which they

To the charge that this is akin to spy- will not venture. For example, in Patrick’s (1973)

ing, Mitchell (1993: 46) makes it clear that there

study of a Glasgow gang, the researcher is witness is a vast difference between covert research and to a murder. Should he report the matter to the

spying:

police and, thereby, ‘blow his cover’, or remain silent in order to keep contact with the gang,

‘Spying is ideologically proactive, whereas thereby breaking the law, which requires a murder

research is ideologically na¨ıve’ (Mitchell 1993: to be reported?

46). Spies, he argues, seek to further a particular In interviewing students they may reveal

value system or ideology; research seeks to sensitive matters about themselves, their family,

understand rather than to persuade. their teachers, and the researcher will need to

Spies have a sense of mission and try to achieve decide whether and how to act on this kind of

certain instrumental ends, whereas research information. What should the researcher do, for

has no such specific mission. example, if, during the course of an interview with

Spies believe that they are morally superior

a teacher about the leadership of the headteacher, to their subjects, whereas researchers have no the interviewee indicates that the headteacher

such feelings; indeed, with reflexivity being has had sexual relations with a parent, or has

so important, they are sensitive to how their an alcohol problem? Does the researcher, in

own role in the investigation may distort the such cases, do nothing in order to gain research

research.

Spies are supported by institutions which train is in the public interest – the protection of an

knowledge, or does the researcher act? What

them to behave in certain ways of subterfuge, individual participant’s private life, or the interests

whereas researchers have no such training. of the researcher? Indeed Lee (1993: 139) suggests

Spies are paid to do the work, whereas that some participants may even deliberately

researchers often operate on a not-for-profit engineer situations whereby the researcher gains

or individualistic basis.

‘guilty knowledge’ in order to test the researcher’s affinities: ‘trust tests’.

On the other hand, not to gain informed consent Ethical issues are thrown into sharp relief in

could lead to participants feeling duped, very sensitive educational research. The question of

angry, used and exploited, when the results of the covert research rises to the fore, as the study

research are eventually published and they realize of deviant or sensitive situations may require

that they have been studied without their approval the researcher to go under cover in order to

consent. 2 The researcher is seen as a predator (Lee obtain data. Covert research may overcome

1993: 157), using the research ‘as a vehicle for ‘problems of reactivity’ (Lee 1993: 143) wherein

status, income or professional advancement which the research influences the behaviour of the

is denied to those studied’. As Lee (1993: 157) participants (Hammersley and Atkinson 1983:

remarks, ‘it is not unknown for residents in some 71). It may also enable the researcher to obtain

ghetto areas of the United States to complain insiders’ true views, for, without the cover of those

wryly that they have put dozens of students through being researched not knowing that they are being

graduate school’. Further, the researched may have researched, entry could easily be denied, and access

no easy right of reply; feel misrepresented by the to important areas of understanding could be lost.

research; feel that they have been denied a voice; This is particularly so in the case of researching

have wished not to be identified and their situation powerful people who may not wish to disclose

put into the public arena; feel that they have been information and who, therefore, may prevent or

exploited.

126 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

The cloak of anonymity is often vital in sensitive interest (e.g. a school’s failure to keep to proper research, such that respondents are entirely

accounting procedures) is brought to light? Should untraceable. This raises the issue of ‘deductive

the researcher follow up the matter privately, disclosure’ (Boruch and Cecil 1979), wherein it is

publicly, or not at all? If it is followed up possible to identify individuals (people, schools,

then certainly harm may come to the school’s departments etc.) in question by reconstructing

officers.

and combining data. Researchers should guard Ethical issues in the conduct of research are against this possibility. Where the details that are

thrown into sharp relief against a backdrop of presented could enable identification of a person

personal, institutional and societal politics, and (e.g. in a study of a school there may be only

the boundaries between public and private spheres one male teacher aged 50 who teaches biology,

are not only relative but also highly ambiguous. such that putting a name is unnecessary, as he

The ethical debate is heightened, for example will be identifiable), it may be incumbent on the

concerning the potential tension between the researcher not to disclose such details, so that

individual’s right to privacy versus the public’s readers, even if they wished to reassemble the

right to know and the concern not to damage details in order to identify the respondent, are

or harm individuals versus the need to serve the unable to do so.

public good. Because public and private spheres The researcher may wish to preserve confiden-

may merge, it is difficult, if not impossible, to tiality, but may also wish to be able to gather data

resolve such tensions straightforwardly (cf. Day from individuals on more than one occasion. In

1985; Lee 1993). As Walford (2001: 30) writes: this case a ‘linked file’ system (Lee 1993: 173) can

‘the potential gain to public interest . . . was great.

be employed. Here three files are kept; in the first There would be some intrusion into the private file the data are held and arbitrary numbers are as-

lives of those involved, but this could be justified signed to each participant; the second file contains

in research on . . . an important policy issue’. The the list of respondents; the third file contains the

end justified the means.

list of information necessary to be able to link the These issues are felt most sharply if the arbitrarily assigned numbers from the first file to

research risks revealing negative findings. To the names of the respondents in the second, and

expose practices to research scrutiny may be like this third file is kept by a neutral ‘broker’, not the

taking the plaster off an open wound. What researcher. This procedure is akin to double-blind

responsibility to the research community does the clinical experiments, in which the researcher does

researcher have? If a negative research report is not know the names of those who are or are not

released, will schools retrench, preventing future receiving experimental medication or a placebo.

research in schools from being undertaken (a That this may be easier in respect of quantita-

particular problem if the researcher wishes to tive rather than qualitative data is acknowledged

return or wishes not to prevent further researchers by Lee (1993: 179).

from gaining access)? Whom is the researcher Clearly, in some cases, it is impossible for

serving – the public, the schools, the research individual people, schools and departments not

community? The sympathies of the researcher to be identified, for example schools may be highly

may be called into question here; politics and distinctive and, therefore, identifiable (Whitty

ethics may be uncomfortable bedfellows in such and Edwards 1994: 22). In such cases clearance

circumstances. Negative research data, such as may need to be obtained for the disclosure of

the negative hidden curriculum of training for information. This is not as straightforward as

conformity in schools (Morrison 2005a) may not it may seem. For example, a general principle

endear researchers to schools. This can risk stifling of educational research is that no individuals

educational research – it is simply not worth the should be harmed (non-maleficence), but what

personal or public cost. As Simons (2000: 45) if a matter that is in the legitimate public

writes: ‘the price is too high’.

RESEARCHING POWERFUL PEOPLE 127

Chapter

Further, Mitchell (1993: 54) writes that ‘timo- may say nothing rather than criticize (Burgess rous social scientists may excuse themselves

1993; Morrison 2001a; 2002b). from the risk of confronting powerful, privileged,

The field of ethics in sensitive research is and cohesive groups that wish to obscure their

different from ethics in everyday research in actions and interests from public scrutiny’ (see

significance rather than range of focus. The same

also Lee 1993: 8). Researchers may not wish to issues as must be faced in all educational research take the risk of offending the powerful or of

are addressed here, and we advise readers to review placing themselves in uncomfortable situations.

Chapter 2 on ethics. However, sensitive research As Simons and Usher (2000: 5) remark: ‘politics

highlights particular ethical issues very sharply; and ethics are inextricably entwined’.

these are presented in Box 5.2.

In private, students and teachers may criticize These are only introductory issues. We refer their own schools, for example, in terms of

the reader to Chapter 2 for further discussion of management, leadership, work overload and stress,

these and other ethical issues. The difficulty with but they may be reluctant to do so in public and,

ethical issues is that they are ‘situated’ (Simons indeed, teachers who are on renewable contracts

and Usher 2000), i.e. contingent on specific local will not bite the hand that feeds them; they

circumstances and situations. They have to be negotiated and worked out in relation to the specifics of the situation; universal guidelines may help but they don’t usually solve the practical

problems, they have to be interpreted locally. Ethical issues in sensitive research

Box 5.2

Researching powerful people

How does the researcher handle ‘guilty knowledge’

and ‘dirty hands’?

A branch of sensitive research concerns that which

Whose side is the researcher on? Does this need to

is conducted on, or with, powerful people, those

be disclosed? What if the researcher is not on the

side of the researched?

in key positions, or elite institutions. In education,

When is covert research justified?

for example, this would include headteachers and

When is the lack of informed consent justified?

senior teachers, politicians, senior civil servants,

Is covert research spying?

decision-makers, local authority officers and school

How should the researcher overcome the charge of

governors. This is particularly the case in respect of

exploiting the participants (i.e. treating them as

objects instead of as subjects of research)?

research on policy and leadership issues (Walford

How should the researcher address confidentiality

1994a: 3). Researching the powerful is an

and anonymity?

example of ‘researching up’ rather than the more

How should the balance be struck between the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s right to

conventional ‘researching down’ (e.g. researching

children, teachers and student teachers).

know?

What is really in the public interest?

What makes the research sensitive is that it is

How to handle the situation where it is unavoidable

often dealing with key issues of policy generation

to identify participants?

and decision-making, or issues about which there is

What responsibility does the researcher have to the research community, some of whom may wish to

high-profile debate and contestation, as issues of a

politically sensitive nature. Policy-related research

conduct further research in the field?

How does the researcher handle frightened or

is sensitive. This can be also one of the reasons

threatened groups who may reveal little?

why access is frequently refused. The powerful are

What protections are in the research, for whom,

those who exert control to secure what they want

and from what?

or can achieve, those with great responsibility and whose decisions have significant effects on large numbers of people.

What obligations does the researcher have?

128 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Academic educational research on the powerful powerful can produce difficulties which include may be unlike other forms of educational research

‘misrepresentation of the research intention, loss in that confidentiality may not be able to be

of researcher control, mediation of the research assured. The participants are identifiable and

process, compromise and researcher dependence’. public figures. This may produce ‘problems of

Research with powerful people usually takes censorship and self-censorship’ (Walford 1994c:

place on their territory, under their conditions 229). It also means that information given in

and agendas (a ‘distinctive civil service voice’: Fitz confidence and ‘off the record’ unfortunately

and Halpin 1994: 42), working within discourses may have to remain so. The issue raised in

set by the powerful (and, in part, reproduced by researching the powerful is the disclosure of

the researchers), and with protocols concerning identities, particularly if it is unclear what has

what may or may not be disclosed (e.g. been said ‘on the record’ and ‘off the record’ (Fitz

under a government’s Official Secrets Act or and Halpin 1994: 35–6).

privileged information), within a world which Fitz and Halpin (1994) indicate that the

may be unfamiliar and, thereby, disconcerting government minister whom they interviewed

for researchers and with participants who may stated, at the start of the interview, what was

be overly assertive, and sometimes rendering the to be attributable. They also report that they

researcher as having to pretend to know less than used semi-structured interviews in their research

he or she actually knows. As Fitz and Halpin of powerful people, valuing both the structure and

(1994: 40) commented: ‘we glimpsed an unfamiliar the flexibility of this type of interview, and that

world that was only ever partially revealed’, and they gained permission to record the interviews

one in which they did not always feel comfortable. for later transcription, for the sake of a research

Similarly, Ball (1994b: 113) suggests that ‘we need record. They also used two interviewers for each

to recognize . . . the interview as an extension of session, one to conduct the main part of the

the ‘‘play of power’’ rather than separate from it, interview and the other to take notes and ask

merely a commentary upon it’, and that, when supplementary questions; having two interviewers

interviewing powerful people ‘the interview is present also enabled a post-interview cross-check

both an ethnographic . . . and a political event’. to be undertaken. Indeed having two questioners

As Walford (1994c) remarks: helped to negotiate the way through the interview

in which advisers to the interviewee were also Those in power are well used to their ideas being present, to monitor the proceedings and interject taken notice of. They are well able to deal with where deemed fitting, and to take notes (Fitz and interviewers, to answer and avoid particular questions

Halpin 1994: 38, 44, 47). to suit their own ends, and to present their own role Fitz and Halpin (1994: 40) comment on in events in a favourable light. They are aware of the considerable amount of gatekeeping that what academic research involves, and are familiar was present in researching the powerful, in with being interviewed and having their words tape- terms recorded. In sum, their power in the educational of access to people (with officers guarding entrances and administrators deciding world is echoed in the interview situation, and whether interviews will take place), places (‘elite interviews pose little threat to their own positions. settings’), timing (and scarcity of time with (Walford 1994c: 225)

busy respondents), ‘conventions that screen off McHugh (1994: 55) comments that access to the routines of policy-making from the public

powerful people may take place not only through and the academic gaze’, conditional access and

formal channels but also through intermediaries conduct of the research (‘boundary maintenance’)

who introduce researchers to them. Here his own monitoring and availability (Fitz and Halpin

vocation as a priest helped him to gain access 1994: 48–9). Gewirtz and Ozga (1994: 192–3)

to powerful Christian policy-makers and, as he suggest that gatekeeping in researching the

was advised, ‘if you say whom you have met,

RESEARCHING POWERFUL PEOPLE 129

Chapter

they’ll know you are not a way-out person who of libel actions if public figures are named. He will distort what they say’ (McHugh 1994: 56).

asks (1994b: 84) ‘to what extent is it right Access is a significant concern in researching the

to allow others to believe that you agree with powerful, particularly if the issues being researched

them?’, even if you do not? Should the researcher’s are controversial or contested. Walford (1994c:

own political, ideological or religious views be

222, 223) suggests that it can be eased through declared? As Mickelson (1994: 147) states: ‘I informal and personal ‘behind the scenes’ contacts:

was not completely candid when I interviewed ‘the more sponsorship that can be obtained, the

these powerful people. I am far more genuine better’, be it institutional or personal. Access can

and candid when I am interviewing non-powerful

be eased if the research is seen to be ‘harmless’ people’. Deem (1994: 156) reports that she and her (Walford 1994c: 223); in this respect Walford

co-researcher encountered ‘resistance and access reports that female researchers may be at an

problems in relation to our assumed ideological advantage in that they are viewed as more harmless

opposition to Conservative government education and non-threatening. Walford also makes the

reforms’, where access might be blocked ‘on the point that ‘persistence pays’ (p. 224); as he writes

grounds that ours was not a neutral study’. elsewhere (Walford 2001: 31), ‘access is a process

Mickelson (1994: 147) takes this further in and not a once-only decision’.

identifying an ethical dilemma when ‘at times, the McHugh (1994) also reports the need for

powerful have uttered abhorrent comments in the meticulous preparation for an interview with the

course of the interview’. Should the researcher say powerful person, to understand the full picture

nothing, thereby tacitly condoning the speaker’s and to be as fully informed as the interviewee,

comments, or speak out, thereby risking closing in terms of facts, information and terminology,

the interview? She contends that, in retrospect, so that it is an exchange between the informed

she wished that she had challenged these views, rather than an airing of ignorance, i.e. to do

and had been more assertive (Mickelson 1994: one’s homework. He also states the need for the

148). Walford (2001) reports the example of an interview questions to be thoroughly planned and

interview with a church minister whose views prepared, with very careful framing of questions.

included ones with which he disagreed: McHugh (1994: 60, 62) suggests that during the

interview it is important for the interviewer not AIDS is basically a homosexual disease . . . and is only to be as flexible as possible, to follow the doing a very effective job of ridding the population

train of thought of the respondent, but also to be of undesirables. In Africa it’s basically a non-existent persistent if the interviewee does not address the disease in many places . . . . If you’re a woolly woofter, issue. However, he reminds us that ‘an interview you get what you deserve . . . . I would never employ

is of course not a courtroom’ (p. 62) and so a homosexual to teach at my school. tact, diplomacy and – importantly – empathy are

(Walford 2001: 137) essential. Diplomacy in great measure is necessary

In researching powerful people Mickelson when tackling powerful people about issues that

(1994: 132) observes that they are rarely women, might reveal their failure or incompetence, and

yet researchers are often women. This gender powerful people may wish to exercise control over

divide might prove problematic. Deem (1994: which questions they answer. Preparation for the

157) reports that, as a woman, she encountered conduct as well as the content of the interview

greater difficulty in conducting research than did is vital.

her male colleague, even though, in fact, she There are difficulties in reporting sensitive

held a more senior position than him. On the research with the powerful, as charges of bias may

other hand, she reports that males tended to be

be difficult to avoid, not least because research more open with female than male researchers, reports and publications are placed in the public

as females researchers were regarded as less domain. Walford (2001: 141) indicates the risk

important. Gewirtz and Ozga (1994) report:

130 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Box 5.3

suggest that while short questions may be useful Researching powerful people

for gathering information about attitudes, longer questions are more suitable for asking questions

about behaviour, and can include examples to

What renders the research sensitive.

How to gain and sustain access to powerful people.

which respondents may wish to respond. Longer

How much the participants are likely to disclose or

questions may reduce the under-reporting of the

withhold.

frequency of behaviour addressed in sensitive

What is on and off the record.

topics (for example, the use of alcohol or

How to prepare for interviews with powerful people.

medication by stressed teachers). On the other

hand, the researcher has to be cautious to avoid

How to probe and challenge powerful people.

How to conduct interviews that balance the

tiring, emotionally exhausting or stressing the

interviewer’s agenda and the interviewee’s agenda

participant by a long question or interview.

and frame of reference.

Lee (1993: 78) advocates using familiar words

How to reveal the researcher’s own knowledge, preparation and understanding of the key issues.

in questions as these can reduce a sense

The status of the researcher vis-`a-vis the

of threat in addressing sensitive matters and

participants.

help the respondent to feel more relaxed.

Who should conduct interviews with powerful

He also suggests the use of ‘vignettes’: ‘short

people.

descriptions of a person or a social situation

How neutral and accepting the researcher should be with the participant.

which contain precise references to what are

Whether to identify the participants in the

thought to be the most important factors in the

reporting.

decision-making or judgement-making processes

How to balance the public’s right to know and the

of respondents’ (Lee 1993: 79). These can not

individual’s right to privacy.

only encapsulate concretely the issues under study,

What is in the public interest.

but also deflect attention away from personal sensitivities by projecting them onto another external object – the case or vignette – and the respondent can be asked to react to them personally, e.g. ‘What would you do in this

we felt [as researchers] that we were viewed as women

situation?’

in very stereotypical ways, which included being seen as receptive and supportive, and that we were obliged

Researchers investigating sensitive topics have to collude, to a degree, with that version of ourselves

to be acutely percipient of the situation because it was productive of the project.

themselves. For example, their non-verbal communication may be critical in interviews.

They must, therefore, give no hint of judgement, In approaching researching powerful people, then,

(Gewirtz and Ozga 1994: 196)

support or condemnation. They must avoid it is wise to consider several issues. These are set

counter-transference (projecting the researchers’ out in Box 5.3.

own views, values, attitudes biases, background onto the situation). Interviewer effects are discussed in Chapter 16 in connection with

Asking questions

sensitive research; these effects concern the In asking questions in research, Sudman and

characteristics of the researcher (e.g. sex, Bradburn (1982: 50–1) suggest that open

race, age, status, clothing, appearance, rapport, questions may be preferable to closed questions

background, expertise, institutional affiliation, and long questions may be preferable to short

political affiliation, type of employment or questions. Both of these enable respondents to

vocation, e.g. a priest). Females may feel more answer in their own words, which might be

comfortable being interviewed by a female; males more suitable for sensitive topics. Indeed they

may feel uncomfortable being interviewed by a

CONCLUSION 131

Chapter

female; powerful people may feel insulted by the interviewer power over the respondent and being interviewed by a lowly, novice research

make the respondent feel vulnerable; (e) what assistant. Interviewer effects also concern the

the interviewer should do with information expectations that the interviewers may have

that may act against the interests of the of the interview (Lee 1993: 99). For example,

people who gave it (e.g. if some groups in

a researcher may feel apprehensive about, or society say that they are not clever enough uncomfortable with, an interview about a sensitive

to handle higher or further education); and matter. Bradburn and Sudman (1979, in Lee

(f) how to handle the conduct of the interview 1993: 101) report that interviewers who did not

(e.g. conversational, formal, highly structured, anticipate difficulties in the interview achieved a

highly directed).

5–30 per cent higher level of reporting on sensitive

Handling the conditions under which the topics than those who anticipated difficulties. This

exchange takes place Lee (1993: 112) suggests suggests the need for interviewer training.

that interviews on sensitive matters should Lee (1993: 102–14) suggests several issues to be

‘have a one-off character’, i.e. the respondent addressed in conducting sensitive interviews:

should feel that the interviewer and the interviewee may never meet again. This can

How to approach the topic (in order to secure trust, and can lead to greater disclosure prevent participants’ inhibitions and to help

than in a situation where a closer relationship them address the issue in their preferred way).

between interviewer and interviewee exists. Here the advice is to let the topic ‘emerge

On the other hand, this does not support gradually over the course of the interview’ (Lee

the development of a collaborative research 1993: 103) and to establish trust and informed

relationship (Lee 1993: 113). consent.

How to deal with contradictions, complexities Much educational research is more or less and emotions (which may require training and

sensitive; it is for the researcher to decide how supervision of interviewers); how to adopt an

to approach the issue of sensitivities and how accepting and non-judgemental stance, how to

to address their many forms, allegiances, ethics, handle respondents who may not be people

access, politics and consequences. whom interviewers particularly like or with

whom they agree).

Conclusion

How to handle the operation of power and control in the interview: (a) where differences

In approaching educational research, our advice of power and status operate, where the

is to consider it to be far from a neat, clean, interviewer has greater or lesser status than

tidy, unproblematic and neutral process, but the respondent and where there is equal status

to regard it as shot through with actual and between the interviewer and the respondent;

potential sensitivities. With this in mind we (b) how to handle the situation where the

have resisted the temptation to provide a list interviewer wants information but is in no

of sensitive topics, as this could be simplistic position to command that this be given

and overlook the fundamental issue which is and where the respondent may or may

that it is the social context of the research that not wish to disclose information; (c) how

makes the research sensitive. What may appear to handle the situation wherein powerful

to the researcher to be a bland and neutral study people use the interview as an opportunity for

can raise deep sensitivities in the minds of the lengthy and perhaps irrelevant self-indulgence;

participants. We have argued that it is these that (d) how to handle the situation in which the

often render the research sensitive rather than interviewer, by the end of the session, has

the selection of topics of focus. Researchers have information that is sensitive and could give

to consider the likely or possible effects of the

132 SENSITIVE EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

research project, conduct, outcomes, reporting 2000), i.e. contingent on particular situations and dissemination not only on themselves but

rather than largely on ethical codes and guidelines. also on the participants, on those connected to

In this respect sensitive educational research the participants and on those affected by, or with

is like any other research, but sharper in the

a stakeholder interest in, the research (i.e. to criticality of ethical issues. Also, behind many of consider ‘consequential validity’: the effects of the

these questions of sensitivity lurks the nagging research). This suggests that it is wise to be cautious

issue of power: who has it, who does not, and to regard all educational research as potentially

how it circulates around research situations (and sensitive. There are several questions that can be

with what consequences), and how it should be asked by researchers, in their planning, conduct,

addressed. Sensitive educational research is often reporting and dissemination of their studies, and

as much a power play as it is substantive. We advise we present these in Box 5.4.

researchers to regard most educational research as These questions reinforce the importance of

involving sensitivities; these need to be identified regarding ethics as ‘situated’ (Simons and Usher

and addressed.

Box 5.4

Key questions in considering sensitive educational research

What renders the research sensitive?

What are the obligations of the researcher, to whom, and how will these be addressed? How do these obligations manifest themselves?

What is the likely effect of this research (at all stages) to be on participants (individuals and groups), stakeholders, the researcher, the community? Who will be affected by the research, and how?

Who is being discussed and addressed in the research?

What rights of reply and control do participants have in the research?

What are the ethical issues that are rendered more acute in the research?

Over what matters in the planning, focus, conduct, sampling, instrumentation, methodology, reliability, analysis, reporting and dissemination might the researcher have to compromise in order to effect the research? On what can there be compromise? On what can there be no compromise?

What securities, protections (and from what), liabilities and indemnifications are there in the research, and for whom? How can these be addressed?

Who is the research for? Who are the beneficiaries of the research? Who are the winners and losers in the research (and about what issues)?

What are the risks and benefits of the research, and for whom? What will the research ‘deliver’ and do?

Should researchers declare their own values, and challenge those with which they disagree or consider to be abhorrent?

What might be the consequences, repercussions and backlash from the research, and for whom?

What sanctions might there be in connection with the research?

What has to be secured in a contractual agreement, and what is deliberately left out?

What guarantees must and should the researcher give to the participants?

What procedures for monitoring and accountability must there be in the research?

What must and must not, should and should not, may or may not, could or could not be disclosed in the research?

Should the research be covert, overt, partially overt, partially covert, honest in its disclosure of intentions?

Should participants be identifiable and identified? What if identification is unavoidable?

How will access and sampling be secured and secure respectively?